[ad#inline-ad-in-article]
Ignatius of Antioch
The simple answer: NO
What is generally accepted and agreed upon by all Christian professing religions of today is that the Lord Jesus Christ established a church in the first century when He was still here on earth. This church was founded and headed by the Lord Jesus Christ and of course would be called after Him, the church of Christ. He had a few helpers primary of whom are the Apostles.
Most Catholics believe that their church, the Roman Catholic church is the church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ. They use all sorts of so-called “sources” and even claim history attest to the validity of their claim. They claim that since the Roman Catholic church is 2000 years old, they can only be the only church which had a direct connection with the church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ.
My own little research did not yield a single document that would help proves this claim to be correct. What I am comfortable in accepting based on what I’ve learned from my church, the Iglesia ni Cristo, is that the Apostles foretold of a turning back of the church built by the Lord Jesus Christ. So, even if the Catholic church may turn out to have a direct connection with the church built by the Lord Jesus Christ, it bears no resemblance to the original church preached by the Lord Jesus and His Apostles.
What is a “church”
I am not a minister and this article is not meant to indoctrinate the reader of the teachings of my church. All this is is a “common sense” take on the question: Is the Roman Catholic church the church built by the Lord Jesus Christ? With that said the following definitions gives us a clearer idea as to what the word mean.
The first paragraph of Colossians 1:18 clearly defined the meaning of “church”.
He is also head of the body, the church;
Webster.com defines the word church this way:
3 often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers:
Clearly then, the church is the “body” or society whose head is the Lord Jesus Christ. And because the church is the body of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is rightly called after Him, the body of Christ or the Church of Christ.
So, the church build by Christ, headed by Christ cannot be called by any other name. For by doing so one would be disregarding the importance of the name and would lose that connection to Christ.
Who first used the name “catholic”
What about the Catholic church? When it first come into being? The Catholic church came into being when a group of me collectively called “church fathers” of a began calling themselves catholic.
The first one to use the word was Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD. By this date, all of the Apostles were already dead and the writing of scriptures had ended. The writings of Ignatius can then be safely and rightfully called “unbiblical”. The first known usage of the name “Catholic Church” was first attributed to Policarp in 155 AD. The list goes on.
Suffice it to say, the Catholic church is not the church mentioned in the bible.
[ad#inline-ad-in-article]
I think you were right that the true Church that was founded by Jesus Christ was the “Church of Christ” 2000 years ago. this Church has nothing to do with the Iglesia ni Cristo here in the Phillipines. You have said that the apostle foretold the “turning back of the Church which Jesus Christ have founded”! where in the words of the bible did you read that? now you were saying that the first who used the word catholic is St. Ignatius of Antioch, your right again; but it does not mean that he was the one who gave it as a name to the Church. if you really have read that epistle (written by ignatius) you would realize that he was not naming the Church but instead he was depicting one of the characteristic of the Church which Christ have founded.
Have you also forgot that the followers of Christ was called Christians by the antiochene community! so there is nothing wrong about it, if this community called the first disciples christians and they did accepted it; then why argue if this only Church was called Catholic by an antiochene disciple. sometimes we have to use our logic, it is God given, theres nothing wrong using it.
i also would like to say sorry for the person who calls himself Catholic yet acted not as one. I think He was out of His mind, and if ever he was a real catholic i am the one who would like to apologize for him. thanks anyway.
Whether Athanasius intended the word “catholic” to be used as the name of the apostatized church is no longer important for the church is now called the Catholic Church, not Church of Christ. Even catholic writers wrote that the church built by Christ is called after Him, Church of Christ. The Catholic church in NOT the Church of Christ!
The Iglesia ni Cristo is the Church of Christ today. They are the ones mentioned in the bible as the “other sheeps not of this fold”.
Ignatius is not a apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. Anything he wrote shouldn’t be regarded as important or even useful in being a Christian.
Yes, we should use logic but only in support and with agreement with the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thank you.
You are all wrong. The mane Catholic means universial. Which is one of the four marks of the true church of christ. And we know that our Lord wanted a single church for everyone to worship him in. Because He said so. Our Lord also left his very own commandments for us as good “Christians” (OH! there goes that word that means ‘Of Christ.’) Which by the way was also used for the first time at Antioch by a SAINT! And guess what, the Traditional Roman Catholic Church is the one true faith. It is the only church to this day that kept EVERY SINGLE teaching, doctrine, and tradition that christ left to the apostles to be obbserved by tha Faithful. ie. Baptised. Everything in the OT foreshadowes everything in the new. Just look at the way God set up and ran the Dividic Monarchy. (The kingdom of David) of which Christ inherited the throne. The Bible says so. The Roman Catholic Church is set up and ran the same way. Its called typeology. Christ even passed Peter the key to the kingdom in the same manner that the key of the Kingdom of David was handed down to Shebna. Almost the same words used in the same manner. Binding and loosing and opening and shutting, etc. Read for yourself and inlighten youelsef before you guys go on talking about something you have no clue about. It is the one true Christian Church, outside of which, there is no salvation. And I am not refering to the Vadican 2 sect. What you see now is not the traditional catholic church. That is really what is throwing you off. The anti Popes of the past and present have started a completely new sect of catholics. Which is a false religion of satan like every other religion. But our Lord said that the gates of hades would not prevail aginst it. And they havent. Simply put because the gates of hell are hericies and heritics. And ipso facto, if you are one, you put yourself outside the catholic faith by that very fact. You see Christ set up His one true faith, (The Catholic faith) so that nothing could happen to it in reality but only in the eyes of dumies like yourselves. You are the ones beinf fooled by man. Thinking that it is as esay as going to hear someone preach once a week at a building about a book that they have no clue about. Being nice to others and putting mans needs and wants first. Keep living those lives and see. It is much much harder to get into heaven than that. Christ said, He that hear me Keep my commandments. And no other faith does it more beautifuly tha The Traditional Roman Catholic Church. For more info go to http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com
May God have mercy on your souls.
It will be welcoming to see on this blog if all answers are biblical and not story telling. Man is full of opinionated answers driven by their imagination. Common sense – if you want to pass a Math subject/course – you will have to consult your Math reference book(s) as prescribed by the school curriculum, which in such case will never be an English reference book or failure is imminent. Same goes with finding the truth about the true “Church”; there should be no other reference except the Holy Scriptures. If I ask the question again, what is the true Church called? It would make sense for me to consider an answer from the bible (any version) as the correct one. It will also be interesting to know if the word Catholic was mentioned in the bible even once especially in reference: You see Christ set up His one true faith, (The Catholic faith). How can one put words on Christ mouth that he didn’t even speak of or preach when he was here on earth? Would you like someone to do that to you? Such act is an abomination! Thank you.
Matthew 16:16-19 is just one proof from the bible. Jesus promissed Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Them gave them to him in John 21: 15-17. I can show you many more if you want. You should really read the book, “The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church”, by Bro. Peter Dimond. You can get it from the web sight I have posted above. Or even better. I have some. If you like I can mail you one. You challenged me for proof I have it if you want it. If you don’t then that is your own bad will. The Catholic faith was also the first christian faith of humanity. And it stayed that way for 1500 years until Martain Luther came along with his crazy ideas of a Man Made religion. (Protestantism) So if you wanna talk about people putting words into the mouth of Christ then give credit where credit is due. Because to start your own religion after Christ founded his, is to put yourself above him. Like is said before the Catholic Faith is the only faith that follows every single teaching of christ. Ohter religions pick and choose. And our Lord is an all or nothing kinda God. http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com Don’t be scared our Lord wants you to convert. But he won’t make you.
You misinterpreted the verses. To make it easy for you to understand, just look at the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles and then compare these teachings against teachings of the Catholic church.
These are just a few teachings that are different. There are a lot more that proves the Catholic church is not the church founded by Christ.
Christ also said to the apostles that what ever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what ever they loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And it also says in the bible that not everything Christ said and did was written down. But what do you think he stayed here on earth for 40 days for. He stayed here to teach the apostle what the doctrines of his church were. And Catholics follow just that. . . what the Apostles taught as doctrin. Which is where your faith in Christ comes into play. And how do you explain the Virgin Mary appearing to the catholic children, catholic priests, (Padre Pio) who bore the stigmata? and died in 1968 and his body is parfect still today? And the uninterupted chain of Saints the Catholic Church hads produced? We are only humbuling ourselves when we ask saints to pray for us because we know that we are awfull sinners and cannot approach the Almighty directly. In 1917 Our Lady of Fatima said that God desired to establish in the world a devotion to her immaculate heart. So that many souls would be saved. Explain also Our Lady of Lasoulet France.
“Jesus said there is only one God, the Father in heaven; Catholics claim God is a Trinity which is much like the Babylonian triad of Cush (the grandson of Noah), Semiramis (his wife), and Nimrod (their son).”
Don’t take the verse out of context and separate from other verses which tells of the divinity of Christ. You use the analogy of Alexander Hislop of equating paganism and some Catholic beliefs which has been disproven by students of Alexander Hislop.
“The apostles teach of a one mediator between God and men, that is Jesus Christ; Catholics claim their so-called saints are mediator, including Mary.”
Yes, the apostles teach that there is one mediator. But read the verse before that verse in 1 Tim 2:5. Do not take this verse out of context. 1 Tim. 2:1-4, Paul asks for petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made which are all functions of being a mediator. What Paul is stating in 1 Tim. 2:5 that though we are mediators among ourselves by praying for one another and interceding, there is one mediator unsurpassable and that is Christ who is the model of all. So there is no conflict.
“The bible calls abstaining from meat as doctrine of demons; Catholics enforces abstaining from eating meat during Lent.”
There is a difference here. The bible speaks of doctrine, where in Catholic teaching that abstaining from meat is one of our doctrine. You are confusing doctrine and ascetical discipline which are totally different. So, your accusation is false.
hello to whom it may concern, i just wanted to ask where in the bible is it written that abstaining from meat is bad?
for the ADD’s, it is obvious that they get their interpretation of the bible from Soriano, who exactly interpreted the bible for the Iglesia?
Thank you and God bless
@monte carmelo
What’s to take out of context? The verse is so clear there is one God, and He’s not a pagan trinity.
You again accepted a misunderstanding of the verse, “pray for” not “pray to”. A grave mistake on your part.
Read you own catechism, it is a Catholic doctrine to abstain from meat.
Thanks for reading my blog. I hope it helps you realize the falsity of the Catholic church.
@observer
it’s in the bible, making people abstain from meat is a doctrine of demons.
depends on what you mean when you say “interpret”.
Truthcaster: it’s in the bible, making people abstain from meat is a doctrine of demons.
Kapatas: Walang doktrina ng pagbabawal sa pagkain ng karne ang Sta. Iglesia Katolika. Pero may aral kami ng pag aayuno. At syempre kapag nag aayuno ka, di ka kakain ng karne. Ewan ko kung sa iglesia ni manalo ay nag aayuno kayo or kung nag aayuno man, eh sinasabayan nyo ng paglantak ng karne. Kaya kasinungalingan yang pinagsasabi mo. Eh mga katoliko nga ang biggest producer at consumer ng karne sa Pilipinas. So panong totoo ang mga haka mo?
In the Litany of the Saints, it is clearly stated “PRAY FOR US” =)
@ Kapatas,
meron doktrina ang katoliko na nagbabawal kumain ng karne. basahin mo and katesismo ng mga katoliko.
@ Monte Carmelo,
Thanks for admitting that your “Litany of Saints” (with an “S” at the end meaning there are many of them) are your “mediator” because you’re asking them to pray for you.
The bible is clear, there is only one mediator, Jesus Christ.
Why abstain specifically from meat for the purpose of pag-aayuno? Why meat?
Iglesia ni Cristo preys on the sideline waiting for Catholics to fall into their trap of false representations about the Catholic faith.
As one of the websites i’ve read, they sell their doctrine not by proving that they are correct but BY TRYING TO teach the Catholic Church is wrong.
INC is ISLAMIC-CHRISTIANITY. They believe only of Father as God (like Allah) but put Jesus as mere human. But Felix as an Angel. Logic now is mess up when they say human like Christ is still higher than an Angel.
Only the IGNORANT believes in their doctrine.
richard,
in case you didn’t notice, this is my personal blog. i did not create this blog to “sell” Iglesia ni Cristo doctrines, nor intended it to be used as such. everything here is my personal research.
having said that, unlike with the catholic church, i have found nothing in the Iglesia ni Cristo doctrines that go against anything in the bible.
Truthcaster, your name is a misnomer. Mas bagay sayo yung Truth suppresor. Why didn’t you post my answers? Is it because you are afraid that your allegation that the Catholic Church is in the wrong will be proved wrong?
Pilit at medyo constipated ang argumento mo na kami yung katuparan sa 1 Tim 4:1-3 dahil walang bawal na pagkain sa mga katoliko at alam ng lahat yan. Between sa inyo at samin, di hamak na kami ang mas malaking producer at consumer ng karne. Kaya tigil-tigilan na ang pambobola sa publiko.
Hindi kami kumakain ng karne at iba pang masasarap na pagkain tuwing mahal na araw dahil panahon yun ng pag aayuno para sa amin. At syempre kapag nag aayuno ka, di ka kakain ng karne. Ang patunayan mo, masama ang pag aayuno.
No. I marked them for what they were: SPAM
Kayo talaga ang mga 1 Tim 4:1-3. Kayo ang may abstinence from meat at kayo rin ang may forbidding to marry.
Sorry, pero kayo talaga ang mga may aral ng demonyo.
Forbidding to marry? I guess your grasp of reality leaves much to be desired. Between Catholic Church and your church, mas marami kinakasal sa Simbahang Katoliko no. Di nag aasawa yung mga celibate priest namin for the simple reason that they FREELY CHOSE to be so, following the advice of St. Paul in 1 Cor 7:33-35 and Christ in Mt 19:12.
Kayo nga ang nagbabawal ng kasal sa hindi nyo ka-member eh. Di ba? So sinong may aral ngayon ng demonyo? Sinong nagbabawal ng kasal, di ba kayo?
Tungkol naman sa abstaining from meats, hanggang ngayon wala ka pang nililitaw na sitas na bawal ang mag ayuno. Hirap kasi sayo, nakikita mo yung EFFECT pero yung CAUSE dine-deny mo. Aba’y tigilan mo na muna ang propaganda at pasimulan mo na ang pagpapatunay sa mga opinyong ikinalat mo.
Yes, forbidding to marry. That’s why some priest transferred to another religion because Catholic forbid priest from getting married.
ikaw yata ang may comprehension problem 
“do not marry unbelievers” yun ang nasa bible. kapag member na sya, pwede na. research mo religion mo, dati ganito rin ang gawa nyo
hindi bawal ang mag ayuno, ang bawal ay ang ipagbawal kumain ng karne
salamat sa pagbisita. balik ka ha?
Saan sa NT mababasa yung “don not marry unbelivers?” Saan? Eh ke linaw sa bibliya na pwedeng mag sama ang di magkapareho ang pananampalataya.
Tsaka between sainyo at samin, wala pa kayo sa kalingkingan kung paramihan lang ng konsumpsyon ng karne kaya tigil-tigilan na ang pambobola sa publiko.
hindi mo alam? itanong mo sa pari mo.
pero kami, hindi pinag babawal.
ha ha ha
Bakit mo tinabas statements ko? Hindi mo kasi kayang tutulan di po ba? Talagang nagiging totoo kalang sa kultura ng mga kapanalig mo na mahilig mangchop-chop ng statements.
inaalis ko ang spam. sayang ang oras ng mga magbabasa
*** removed. spam ***
i can’t allow spam on my blog. you’re welcome to post sensible comments anytime
Yung mga argumento pala na hindi mo kayang sagutin spam. So nasan na ba yung talata sa NT na nagsasabi na “do not marry with unbeleivers?” Kinukwentuhan mo lang ata ako eh. At least ako may nabasa na pwedeng magsama yung kristyano at di mamanampalataya.(1 Cor 7:13-14) Ikaw hanggang ngayon wala. So sino ngayon ang nagbabawal ng pag aasawa? Di ba kayo? Kaya sainyo tumatama ang 1 Tim 4:1-3.
Pakisagot din nitong isa ko pang tanong na iniiwasan mo: Kayo ba kung nag aayuno eh sinasabayan nyo ng pagkain ng karne?
Wag nang umiwas. Pakisagot lang. Papalusot ka pa na kesyo spam eh halata namang hirap kang tumtutol eh. Hwag na kasing magpalusot.
its your own opinion, if Jesus is not the founder of roman catholic church…..the question who is the founder? and im sure u can’t answer co’z i know u don’t know right?…your church founded only by a man…
please remember that there are a gazillion of protestant denominations because of “personal biblical interpretation”…taking verses into our personal contexts can have CHAOTIC consequences…
Did Jesus “intend” a church? Yes absolutely. It’s in the bible.
,alam ko katoliko karin noon mr.truthcaster…bumalik ka katoliko para malaman mo ang katotohanan..,relax ka lang dyan..parang galit kana ata..hehehe…
hindi ako naging katoliko and i can’t imagine myself being one. sabi ng Dios sya lang ang Dios, sabi ng Panginoong Jesus may isa lang Dios ang Ama na nasa langit kaya hindi ako mapapaniwala nino man na Dios din ang Panginoong Jesus kagaya ng Ama, ang Dios na makapangyarihan sa lahat.
hindi ako galit sa mga katoliko ang tutuo naa awa dahil hanggang ngayon nasa mali pa rin silang pananampalataya.
I still dn’t think Jesus would have willed that a Church in the Philippines would be founded in the 20th century…
The claim made by the Roman Catholic Church that it came from Christ is a historical fact that can be easly proven. First of all Jews and Roman Catholics share a 400 year common history. Jews have tought for the last 2000 years that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. Second the claim that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church can be found in the writings of the early church fathers. The first christian history is Eusebius History of the Church, and it says that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church. Eusebius also gives us the first written description of a Christian church building filled with statues, and pictures of Jesus and the saints. The early church fathers describe the primicy of Peter and his sucessors. The early church fathers describe the Roman Catholic Mass, infant baptism, praying to the saints, and every thing else that Roman Catholics do.You can also read ” A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” edited by David W. Bercot. for example: ” The spirit could not abide upon all men, but only on HIM who was born of Mary, the God bearer” written in the Disputation of Archelaus and Manes 320AD. And also: “Each man goes to everlasting punishment or SALVATION according to the value of his works.” Justin Martyr 160AD.The fact that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church is a historic fact that can be proven by NON Catholics. Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church and we Roman Catholics wrote the New Testiment in your King James Bible.
gee, if that was true then Jesus or the Apostles should have at least mentioned the catholic church, wouldn’t you think? And as you’ve stated “church fathers”, catholic church fathers where the ones making all these claims, NOT Jesus, NOT the Apostles. But if we take all of these claims by “church fathers” away and just stick with teachings, the teachings of the Catholic church are exactly opposite and against the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles. So then how can they be one and the same if they’re opposite. One teachings, the trinity is the best example of opposite teachings. Nowhere in the bible can you find the teaching, even the word itself nor the concept of the trinity.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”catholic church fathers where the ones making all these claims, NOT Jesus, NOT the Apostles. But if we take all of these claims by “church fathers” away and just stick with teachings, the teachings of the Catholic church are exactly opposite and against the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles.”
Question to you RESBAK: How do you think the apostles’ teachings were continued out when they died or did their teachings died with them too?
FYI RESBAK,These “Church Fathers” you are maligning are holy men who were successors of the apostles. The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothys generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
I wouldn’t have had any problem with your “church fathers” if they only preached what Jesus and the Apostles preach. the problem is that they taught teachings directly opposite of what Jesus and the Apostles preached. They did not continue what the Apostles started, they changed, added to and subtracted from what the Apostles teach.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK (3-6-10):
“gee, if that was true then Jesus or the Apostles should have at least mentioned the catholic church, wouldn’t you think?”
It seems that above statement implies that you “believe that everything should be in the Bible for it to be true.” The problem is that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura. No where in the Bible will you find any writer say that the Scriptures are the sole, exclusive and infallible authority for God’s word. To the contrary, the sacred writers repeatedly emphasize oral Tradition, the Church,(household of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of TRUTH.1 TIMOTHY 3:15)and the authority of the Church’s ecclesial hierarchy (that is why you see repeated references to bishops, priests, deacons and the “laying on of hands.”)
When you say “we must believe in the Gospels,” you are necessarily basing your beliefs on a tradition OUTSIDE of Scripture. That is because Scripture is NOT self-authenticating. You would not know the Scriptures were inspired unless someone first told you that they were. Relying on a source outside of Scripture to demonstrate the truth of Scripture undermines sola Scriptura.
There was no Bible (if you don’t know it) for 400 years AFTER Christ’s death, and it wasn’t even distributed for 1500 years after His death. If the Bible is the only way to get us to heaven, then what happened to those millions of poor souls who never had a Bible during the 1500 year period? RESBAK, you need to get familiar with basic history. Jesus Christ established a Church to proclaim the good news. He never intended on having the Bible be the sole infallible guide for the Christian faith. This is why the Catholic Church is one, and Protestant denominations are 30,000.
The Catholic Church wrote, translated, copied, and preserved God’s written word throughout the ages. That is the only reason you even have a Bible. Quit trying to interpret the Scriptures without the Church, because it is the Bible in the Church, the Church before the Bible, the Bible and the Church (both or neither).
The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Catholic Church told you so. How do you know what books should be in the Bible when the Bible doesn’t tell you? You only know it because the Catholic Church definitively declared the Bible canon at the end of the fourth century.
One of the most significant problems with Sola Scriptura (the belief that the Bible is the sole infallible source for God’s word, and that nothing outside of Scripture is necessary for our salvation) is the canon of Scripture. The canon refers to the list of books that belong in the Bible. The problem with this is that the canon of Scripture is necessary for our salvation, but the Bible does not tell us what the canon is. This forces us to look outside the Bible to understand how its books were selected. But doing this destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura (since something necessary for our salvation – knowing what books are inspired – came to us from outside the Bible).
The fact is that the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture at regional councils in A.D. 382, 393 and 397. Before the Catholic Church’s decision, the canon was not settled. In fact, for three centuries people debated whether Hebrews, John’s third epistle, and the Apocalypse were divinely inspired. In addition, there were many other writings that were supposedly inspired (the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Clement, etc.) that the Catholic Church rejected. So the Catholic Church made an infallible decision regarding the canon of Scripture, and all Christians who believe in the Bible owe this debt to the Church. The question is, who gave the authority to the Catholic Church to make this infallible decision? And why do non-Catholic Christians follow the Catholic Church’s decision on the Bible canon, but not her other teachings?
There are about 7,940 verses in the Bible. Over 6,100 of them have some form of corruption. Again, how do you know that you are getting the proper translation? If you really know, then tell me. I only know by listening to the Church who gave me the Scriptures. You need an authority outside of Scripture to tell you.
Only the Catholic Church exhibits these characteristics of the New Testament Church with its hierarchical structure, and only the bishops of the Catholic Church, united with the pope, can trace their lineage back to the apostles. If you are in a “Bible-church,” you should ask who your “bishops” are. If you don’t have any, then your not in the church of the Bible.
So I guess you don’t know about the verse which states that the bible is complete, right?
There was no bible as we know it now. But the written words of God existed. In fact, the Lord Jesus himself read them.
The Catholic church claims the own the bible. And that’s all it is, a claim.
Are you saying the Catholic church is more powerful than the words of God? Blasphemy.
I don’t subscribe to the Sola Scriptura.
If the Catholic church indeed “compiled” the bible, they should know it’s contents and understand them, correct? Well, they don’t. Proof? There is only ONE GOD, the FATHER in heaven. NOT the trinity.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:” They did not continue what the Apostles started, they changed, added to and subtracted from what the Apostles teach.”
JESUS bestowed a unique authority on the twelve apostles. He conferred on them his power to bind and loose in heaven and on Earth (Matt. 18:18). He gave them his authority to forgive sins (John 20:21-23; 2 Cor. 5:18-20). He designated Peter as his vicar, giving him a special authority to govern the Church (Matt. 16:18-19; John 21:15-17). He promised the apostles that when they taught, he spoke through them, and that whoever rejected their teachings rejected Jesus himself (Matt. 10:40; Luke 10:16).
As the Church got off the ground, the apostles TRANSMITTED this authority TO THEIR successors (Acts 1:15-26). Paul exhorted a newly-ordained bishop, “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you by the prophetic words with the IMPOSITION OF HANDS [ordination] of the presbyterate” (1 Tim. 4:14).
Later Paul reminded Timothy that the conferral of apostolic authority was not to be handed on to others without prudent consideration of a candidate’s qualifications: “As for the imposition of hands, do not bestow it inconsiderately” (1 Tim. 5:22).
If the CHURCH FATHERS “changed,added to & subtracted from what the Apostles teach” BY what justification are you standing on your charges?
What about Jesus’ promise to send the Holy Spirit as a guide who would abide with the Church (John 14:16, 26)? –>
* “I will ask the Father and he will send you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans”
What about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth (John 16:13)?
So are you saying that Jesus failed in His promises?
No. The promise is true. It’s just not the Catholic church the received it. It’s easy to distinguished who received the Holy Spirit. It is given to the ones who follows and obeys Christ and that cannot be the Catholic church. Jesus said, “that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God”. Does the Catholic church believed in a one true God? Absolutely not! The Catholics believe in at least three gods.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”So I guess you don’t know about the verse which states that the bible is complete, right? There was no bible as we know it now. But the written words of God existed. In fact, the Lord Jesus himself read them”
You talk like the Bible just fell out of the sky.
FYI,THE BIBLE is a BOOK consisting of a COMPILATION of DIVINELY-INSPIRED WRITINGS.There is NO question that the DIVINELY-INSPIRED writings CAME FROM GOD. But the one WHO CHOSE AND COMPILED these DIVINELY-INSPIRED writings was the CATHOLIC CHURCH.
So what verse states that the Bible is complete? PROOF PLEASE.
AS you know Bible and Scriptures are very different. Scriptures are the writings of holy men-the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit while the Bible is A BOOK consisting of a COMPILATION of SCRIPTURES/DIVINELY-INSPIRED WRITINGS.
dandelionne said:
Claims again. You can make that claim till the Lord Jesus returns and it still does not support you other claim that the Catholic church is the first century Church of Christ.
You don’t know? and you claim you “compiled” the bible? too funny.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”No. The promise is true. It’s just not the Catholic church the received it.”
* Then what kind of church that received the promise that can trace back its roots from the apostles?
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”Does the Catholic church believed in a one true God? Absolutely not! The Catholics believe in at least three gods.”
Oh THREE GODS? SO you are really attacking the Catholic Church BASING ONLY thru your PREJUDICES! Perhaps the most common objection to the Trinity is that the numbers don’t seem to add up. Those who don’t accept the idea of a Trinity are usually under the impression that Catholics are content to say that the difficulty can be resolved by taking refuge in the “God is a mystery” argument.
Believing in a mystery does not mean believing in something that is unreasonable or illogical but rather in something you do not have the capacity to ever know completely—such as God. It isn’t something you can’t know anything about; it is something you can’t know everything about.
You’ll still need to demonstrate that the idea of three Persons and one God is not illogical. To begin, explain the difference between being and person. Being answers the question “What?” and person answers the question “Who?” For example, pointing to my mother, the question “What is she?” is answered with, “A human being.” The question of “Who is she?” is answered with, “Janie.”
All persons are beings, but not all beings are persons. For example, you are one being and one person. But a dog is one being and zero persons. With regard to the Trinity, there is ONE being, which is God, yet there are there Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not illogical. If one were to say that there is one God and three Gods, or one Person and three Persons—that would be illogical. But one Being and three Persons is not a contradiction.
dandelionne said:
The church that teaches the same teachings as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles and that’s the Iglesia Ni Cristo. Unlike the Catholic Church who espoused teaching created by men(church fathers), the Iglesia Ni Cristo’s teachings are based on the teachings of Christ and his Apostles. Go ahead, examine the teachings.
Can you cite a verse from the bible with the word “trinity”? How about the concept/mystery, is that in the bible? How about Jesus being equal with God?
What’s really funny Resbak is you think like the Bible fell from the sky. Research on Church History. Even a secular historian on religion would laugh at your arrogance.
The Bible is God’s book. Yes. But if God determined the canon of Scripture (which He did), then how did He let us know about it?
The answer is that He did it through His Church. If you study history, you see that the canon was determined by the Catholic Church at regional councils in Rome, Hippo and Carthage in 382, 393 and 397 A.D. Even Protestants admit this history.
So, unlike what you are contending, the Bible didn’t just fall out of the sky. God did not give us an inspired table of contents. There were 50 different “GOSPELS” floating around Judea during the first centuries of the Church. It took an authority to determine what was inspired and what was not inspired. God gave this authority to the Church, just like He gave the same Church the authority to define the dogmas of God and Christ.
Unlike your church the Iglesia Ni Cristo,how then can it be the “true” church when it was FOUNDED by Felix Manalo in the year 1914.
If Christ promised in Matthew 28:20, “I am with you always even until the end of the world.”; where was the True Church throughout the past 1,300 ++ years before INC existed in 1914?
What’s even funnier is that you claim to have authority in “compiling” the Bible and yet you only want to go as early as 382 AD dismissing Judaism a religion older that the RCC totally.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”Can you cite a verse from the bible with the word “trinity”?
Jesus did not stand in the manger and announce his divinity, and neither did God stand on Mount Sinai and give Moses a theological exposition of the three distinct Persons who are one in being and nature, existing consubstantially and eternally. The Lord is like a good teacher who reveals his truth by slowly planting seeds and then evoking the truth of the conclusions from his students. His revelation to the Jews was a gradual process, and so there is no problem if he wished to reveal more of himself to humanity as time progressed. As Jesus said, “I have many things yet to say to you, but you are not able to bear them at present” (John 16:12).
Similarly, Jesus revealed that his kingdom would be like a mustard seed that grows into the largest of shrubs. There is an organic development in understanding that takes place over time. This is not a mutation or contradiction of a prior understanding, but the natural flowering of truth.
Where are the Old Testament seeds of the Trinity? In Deuteronomy 6:4, one finds the Shema, the Jewish expression of monotheism: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” There are two words in Hebrew for one. YACHID means only one. ECHOD means a compound unity or a united one—as in Genesis: “evening and morning . . . one day” or “husband and wife . . . one flesh.” This second word, ECHOD, which describes a unity of beings, is the one used to speak of God, who is not by essence a solitude, but a unity of three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Other implicit references to the Trinity in the Old Testament include Gen. 1:26, which reads, “Let US make man in our image, according to our likeness.” Since God was alone at the time of creation (Isa. 44:24, Neh. 9:6) with no other gods, this expression of plurality must refer to God himself. At the Tower of Babel God says, “Let US go down,” yet no one else comes down with him (Gen. 11:7).
Still, the Jews did not have an understanding of the Trinity. It was only in Christ that God the Father revealed he had a Son, and that this Son was to send the Spirit. Monotheism was unheard of at the time of ancient Israel, and if Yahweh tried to announce that he was one God in three Persons, it would have seemed to be tritheism (worshiping three gods) to the polytheistic people of the day. God waited for the Christian era to reveal his true nature
I’ll take this as an admittance that you can’t cite a bible verse concerning “trinity”.
You’re making you own claims, interpretations and conclusions, which quite frankly as so easy to dispute.
You quoted Deut which is in the Old Testament. Incidentally, where in the Old Testament is it written that Jesus as God. The verse you quoted didn’t say that. On the contrary, it spelled out what was true in the ancient times, there was only ONE God. As far, your understanding of the Hebrew I’d rather not get into that as I’m not an expert on Hebrew. If you are an expert on Hebrew you should be debating a INC minister, not a blogger.
With Gen 1:26 you took US to mean literally God and other Gods. If you do that you should also take everything in the verse literally you cannot pick and choose. If that’s the case, then man will be created in Gods image/likeness. Guess what, God is spirit and cannot be seen. Now you need rationalize why man can be seen.
Can you point me to a verse where it says “God waited for the Christian era to reveal his true nature”?
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”How about Jesus being equal with God?”
Who created the world, forgives sins, gives eternal life, answers prayers, and is worthy of worship? Few would argue that anyone but God is capable of these things. But the Bible teaches that Jesus DOES THEM ALL (Heb. 1:10; Matt: 9:6; John 10:28; John 14:13; Rev. 5:13–14, respectively).
In John 8:58, Jesus takes this sacred name of God (cf. Ex. 3:14), and applies it to himself: “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” Only God may use this title of himself without b.aspheming (Ex. 20:7, Deut. 5:11), and the punishment for misusing his name is death by stoning (Lev. 24:16). Thus Jesus’ good Jewish audience immediately recognized the sacred name, and as a result they picked up stones to kill him when he applied that name to himself (John 8:59).
John 1:1 reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (emphasis added). John begins his Gospel by proclaiming the divinity of Christ. Aquinas noted in his Sermon-Conferences on the Apostles Creed that John 1:1 refutes three major Christological heresies in one swipe. By saying, “In the beginning was the Word,” the heresy of Photinus (Jesus was a created being) is destroyed. When John says, “and the Word was with God” he refutes the heresy of Sabellius (Jesus was the Father). Lastly, when John says that the “Word was God,” the Arian heresy (Jesus was not God) also collapses.
Another compelling verse to consider is John 20:28, where the apostle Thomas says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God.” In the Greek, this sentence reads literally, “The Lord of me and the God of me.” It would be nothing short of b.asphemy for Jesus not to rebuke Thomas if he were wrong. Jesus does nothing of the sort, but in fact he accepts Thomas’ profession of his identity as God in the next verse.
Since INC denies the Trinity,they usually do not think that the Holy Spirit is a Person, let alone God. For this reason you will probably have to deal with both issues.
Begin with the personhood of the Spirit. In Acts 13:2, the Holy Spirit says, “Set Barnabas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them” (emphasis added). This is a clear reference to the Holy Spirit as a personal being, not some kind of impersonal force.
John 16 refers to the Holy Spirit as a “he” ten times in a single chapter. Scripture also reveals that the Holy Spirit can be lied to (Acts 5:3), can speak (Acts 8:29; 10:19, 20; 13:2), hear (John 16:13–15), teach (John 14:26), reprove (John 16:8-11), pray and intercede (Rom. 8:26), love (Rom. 15:30), be grieved (Eph. 4:30), and be blasphemed (Mark 3:29). Only a person is capable of these attributes and abilities, and only God can be b.asphemed.
Some argue that since the Holy Spirit is a Spirit, he is not a person. But God is a spirit. Satan is a spirit. Angels and demons are spirits—and all of these are persons. The classic definition of a person is an individual substance of a rational nature. The Holy Spirit is obviously an individual substance, and the above verses confirm that he is of a rational nature.
This should demonstrate sufficiently that the Holy Spirit is a personal being, and so now one must prove that he is God. Any number of biblical passages can be used to support this. Acts 5:1–4 explains that a lie to the Holy Spirit is a lie to God himself. (To see verses where the Holy Spirit is equal to God, compare Isa. 44:24 and Mal. 2:10 with Job 33:4, and Ps. 104:30. Also worth comparing is Ex. 17:2 with Heb. 3:9 and Jer. 31:33 with Heb 10:15–16.)
The Bible contains a number of other passages where the Holy Spirit is ON PAR WITH GOD. For example, The Holy Spirit is
1. EVERLASTING (Heb. 9:14),
2.ALL KNOWING (1 Cor. 2:10) and
3. OMNIPRESENT (Ps. 139:7)—attributes that only God has. Only the Catholic understanding of the Trinity can reconcile these passages.
I guess you didn’t know the bible verse that said Jesus did what he did because God GAVE him the power to do so and that he can’t do anything without God. That takes care of your lengthy argument.
If the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also Gods, He should know that they are Gods, do you agree? God is all knowing after all. Well, there’s a verse in the bible which states that God does not know of any other Gods.
Do you see how your lengthy argumentation are taken care of by one verse?
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”The church that teaches the same teachings as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles and that’s the Iglesia Ni Cristo.”
OH YEAH? Then what happened to the teachings of the apostles during the last 1,300 years before Felix Manalo founded INC in 1914?
By that account,the people during the past 1,300 years before 1914 were damned to hell because the “true” church did not yet exist,(since you claim your church is the only one who teaches the same as Christ).
By that account,INC has no idea at all how the Bible came to be SINCE your church was founded only in 1914.
By that account,the Reformation already happened 393 years before INC was founded by Manalo.
By that account,Christians around the world were glorifying Christ as God for the past 1,300++ years and yet the teachings of the INC was still unheard of.
a, yeah. So I guess you didn’t know about the verse that says God will judge those outside the church? For someone who claims to belong to the church that supposedly “compile” and “canonized” the bible you certainly don’t know much of it’s contents.
The teachings of the INC are from the teachings of the Lord Jesus and the Apostles. Feel free to scrutinize them.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:” First of all, catholic “saints” were made saints only by the catholic church. please research “beatification, canonizing”.
HAHA. You don’t even know who the saints are! The word saint in the New Testament translates the Greek word hagios, which simply means “holy.” When it is used substantively (as a noun), it means “holy one” (ho hagios). Thus, it could refer to God, the angels, or human beings. In the verses you cited, Paul is referring to Christians as “holy ones” because they have been made holy by God. A related word is used in 1 Corinthians 6:11 when Paul says, “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” The word sanctified here is HAGIAZO, meaning “to make something or someone holy.” So saints are those who have been made holy by God.
If we keep the root meaning of hagios in mind—that is, a holy one—then we can use the word both of those LIVING ON EARTH and those IN HEAVEN. But keep in mind that we Catholics distinguish between saints on earth and the saints in heaven. It’s simply a matter of reasoning from the lesser to the greater. As we on earth are saints in the making, so those in heaven are saints who have been perfected in faith, hope, and love (cf. 1 Cor. 13:13).
Jesus has only one Body – not one on earth and another one in heaven (Eph. 4:4, Col. 3:15). All Christians, including those in heaven, are members of that one body.
Because of Christ’s victory over death, a victory in which all Christians share,(See 1 Cor. 15:25-26, 54-56; 2 Cor. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:10.) natural death can’t separate Christians from Christ or from each other. That’s why Paul exulted,
“What will separate us from the love of Christ? . . . I am convinced that NEITHER death, NOR life . . . will be able to separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 8:35- 39). Since death has no power to sever the bond of Christian unity, the relationship between Christians on earth and those in heaven remains intact.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”a, yeah. So I guess you didn’t know about the verse that says God will judge those outside the church? For someone who claims to belong to the church that supposedly “compile” and “canonized” the bible you certainly don’t know much of it’s contents.”
Ok so you cannot be judge because you believe that you are “inside” the Church. BUT How then can INC be inside the Church when INC was founded by Felix Manalo only in 1914. Where was INC before that?
Please
The Iglesia Ni Cristo was not FOUNDED by Bro Felix Y Manalo. The teachings of the Iglesia Ni Cristo is that the Lord Jesus Christ founded his church and was called after him, Church of Christ, or Iglesia Ni Cristo in Pilipino.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”The teachings of the INC are from the teachings of the Lord Jesus and the Apostles. Feel free to scrutinize them.”
OH REALLY? Last check,Pastor Quiboloy and Brother Eddie are saying the same thing! So are countless Protestants around the world! So how then can somebody tell me who among who are telling the truth.
If INC is indeed following the teachings of the Jesus and apostles,then why are you calling Jesus “Lord” and yet you do not believe in his divinity?
If INC is indeed following the teachings of Jesus and the apostles,WHERE WAS INC BEFORE 1914? PLEASE ANSWER.
Well, have you looked into their teachings?
The Lord Jesus was MADE Lord, remember? So many things you don’t know about the book you claim your church compiled.
When was the church before 1914? Please read what the Apostles foretell before they died. For a thorough and complete explanation, please talk to an INC minister. Its a long lesson. Or you can watch Iglesia Ni Cristo programs on http://www.net-25.com.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”I guess you didn’t know the bible verse that said Jesus did what he did because God GAVE him the power to do so and that he can’t do anything without God. That takes care of your lengthy argument.”UNQUOTE
I then ask, “Why was Jesus killed? Why his Jewish brethren beat him, spit at him, mock him, and crucify him? What did he do that offended them so much that it required his death?” The only interpretation that can answer that question comes from a literal reading of Mark 14: 61-65. The Jews who had heard him preach understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. To non-Christian Jews, that claim was regarded as a clear b.asphemy.
During his trial when Jesus was asked, “Are you the Son of God?” and he said, “I am,” the high priest ripped his clothes as a sign of outrage and condemned Jesus as a blasphemer. Why did they consider this b.asphemy, worthy of death, if it was symbolic language, not to be taken literally? These Jewish scholars would have realized the possibility that he was speaking figuratively if his words had allowed that interpretation. Moreover, if they had misunderstood Jesus’ words, why didn’t he correct them and avoid the punishment that followed?
Why was the Lord Jesus killed? That’s the will of the Father. Remember?
RESBAK,if you claim that your church,the INC follows the teachings of Jesus and his apostles,how come you dont believe in his divinity?
Here are ff.verses where Jesus claimed to be God:
* John 5:23 – Jesus equates Himself with the Father, “whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”
*John 6:38 – Jesus says, “For I have come down from heaven.”
* John 8:12 – Jesus says “I am the light of the world.” – 1 John 1:5 – God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.
* John 10:18 – Jesus says He has the power to lay down His life and take it up again – Gal. 1:1 – God raised Jesus to life.
* John 14:6 – Jesus says “I am the way, and the truth and the life.” Only God is the way, the truth and the life.
* John 16:15 – Jesus says, “all things that the Father has are Mine.” Jesus has everything God has which makes Him God.
* John 16:28 – Jesus says that “He came from the Father and has come into the world.”
* Rev. 1:8 – God says He is the “Alpha and the Omega.” In Rev. 22:13, Jesus also says He is the “Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end.” The only possible conclusion one can reach is that Jesus is equal to the Lord God.
* Rev. 1:17 – Jesus says again, “I am the First and the Last.” This is in reference to the God prophesied by Isaiah in Isaiah 44:6, 41:4, 48:12.
* Rev. 1:18 – Jesus, the First and the Last, also says “I died, and behold, I am alive for evermore.” When did God ever die? He only did in the humanity of Jesus Christ our Lord and God.
Rev. 2:8 – Jesus again says, “The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life.” When did God die and come to life? In our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Here are several verses where Jesus Christ is Worshiped:
Rev. 4:9-11; 5:8,12-14; 7:11-12 – both Jesus and the Father are worshiped. The Greek word for worship is “proskuneo” which always means the worship of God.
Matt. 2:2,11 – the magi who came to see the newborn Jesus came to worship Him.
Matt. 8:2 – a leper came to Jesus and worshiped Him without rebuke.
Matt. 14:33 – the apostles who were in the boat worshiped Jesus without rebuke.
Matt. 28:9 – Jesus’ disciples took His feet and worshiped Him without rebuke.
Matt. 28:17 – Jesus’ disciples saw Him and then worshiped Him.
Mark 5:6 – the man with the unclean spirit ran to Jesus and worshiped Him.
Luke 1:11 – Mary accepts Elizabeth’s declaration “the Mother of my Lord” = the Mother of my God (Elizabeth used the word “Adonai” which means “Lord God”).
Luke 24:52 – as Jesus ascended into heaven, the apostles worshiped Him.
John 9:38 – the blind man who was cured by Jesus worshiped Him.
John 20:28 – Jesus accepts Thomas’ statement “My Lord and my God!” Literally, “the Lord of me and the God of me!” (in Greek, “Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou”).
HOW THEN CAN ANY MAN WORSHIP JESUS IF HE WAS ONLY A PROPHET?
You’ve misinterpreted the verses you quoted.
You ask why we don’t believe Jesus is God? simple, here:
If there is only one God, it can’t be the Lord Jesus. Why? The Lord Jesus said so himself.
and this
As far as worshipping the Lord Jesus, please read your bible and look for when God commanded that the Lord Jesus is to be worshipped.
RESBAK,indeed,it was mentioned in the gospels that the CHURCH of CHRIST is the True Church. ANY self-ascribed interpreter of the Bible can make up an organization and build up a church and call it the “Church of Christ” (just as Felix Manalo did in 1914).
But how can Iglesia ni Cristo be really the True Church,even if it BOLDLY CLAIMS they follow the teachings of Christ?
Just like the BAPTISTS, where they BOLDLY CLAIM that they can trace their beginnings to John the Baptist and yet, HISTORICALLY, their denomination was FOUNDED by John Smyth at Amsterdam in 1609.
Iglesia Ni Cristo can proudly claim to be the True Church for all they want but HISTORICALLY SPEAKING,it was FOUNDED BY FELIX MANALO IN 1914.
True. Anyone can register a church and call it “Church of Christ”. But the name is only the first test on how to tell which is the true Church of Christ. There are other test, but any church should first pass the first test, and that is the name of the church.
Bro Felix Y Manalo, or any minister or member of the Iglesia Ni Cristo ever claim that Bro Manalo is the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. There is not a teaching in the INC that says that.
WHAT IS THE HISTORY OF YOUR CHURCH?
Church Year Established Founder Where Established
Catholic 33 Jesus Christ Jerusalem
Orthodox 1054 Schismatic Catholic Bishops Constantinople
Lutheran 1517 Martin Luther Germany
Anabaptist 1521 Nicholas Storch & Thomas Munzer Germany
Anglican 1534 Henry VIII England
Mennonites 1536 Menno Simons Switzerland
Calvinist 1555 John Calvin Switzerland
Presbyterian 1560 John Knox Scotland
Congregational 1582 Robert Brown Holland
Baptist 1609 John Smyth Amsterdam
Dutch Reformed 1628 Michaelis Jones New York
Congregationalist 1648 Pilgrims and Puritans Massachusetts
Quakers 1649 George Fox England
Amish 1693 Jacob Amman France
Freemasons 1717 Masons from four lodges London
Methodist 1739 John & Charles Wesley England
Unitarian 1774 Theophilus Lindey London
Methodist Episcopal 1784 60 Preachers Baltimore, MD
Episcopalian 1789 Samuel Seabury American Colonies
United Brethren 1800 Philip Otterbein & Martin Boehn Maryland
Disciples of Christ 1827 Thomas & Alexander Campbell Kentucky
Mormon 1830 Joseph Smith New York
Methodist Protestant 1830 Methodist United States
Church of Christ 1836 Warren Stone & Alexander Campbell Kentucky
Seventh Day Adventist 1844 Ellen White Washington, NH
Christadelphian (Brethren
of Christ 1844 John Thomas Richmond, VA
Salvation Army 1865 William Booth London
Holiness 1867 Methodist United States
Jehovah’s Witnesses 1874 Charles Taze Russell Pennsylvania
Christian Science 1879 Mary Baker Eddy Boston
Church of God in Christ 1895 Various churches of God Arkansas
Church of Nazarene c. 1850-1900 Various religious bodies Pilot Point, TX
Pentecstal 1901 Charles F. Parkham Topeka, KS
Aglipayan 1902 Gregorio Aglipay Philippines
Assemblies of God 1914 Pentecostalism Hot Springs, AZ
IGLESIA NI CRISTO 1914 Felix Manalo Philippines
Four-square Gospel 1917 Aimee Semple McPherson Los Angeles, CA
United Church of Christ 1961 Reformed and Congregationalist Philadelphia, PA
Calvary Chapel 1965 Chuck Smith Costa Mesa, CA
United Methodist 1968 Methodist and United Brethren Dallas, TX
Born-again c. 1970s Various religious bodies United States
Harvest Christian 1972 Greg Laurie Riverside, CA
Saddleback 1982 Rick Warren California
Non-denominational c. 1990s various United States
So your basis for being the true Church of Christ is history? again, circular argument. If we follow this argument, Judaism is the true Church of Christ. And we all know that is not the case.
Sorry to tell you, that is not the way to prove the RCC is the true church.
Here’s one easy, simple way to prove two things: that the Iglesia Ni Cristo today is the true Church of Christ, and that the Catholic church is NOT the true Church of Christ.
How many Gods are there?
Bible: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.
Iglesia Ni Cristo: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.
RCC:Jesus Christ … true God of true God (Nicean Creed)
How can Judaism be the True Church of Christ when they don’t believe that the messiah has come which we Christians believe is Jesus.
Sorry to tell you too but apart from following the teachings of Christ, you should know who founded your church.
How can you say INC is really the True Church of Christ EVEN IF IT FOLLOWS ALL THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST TO THE CORE, when your church was FOUNDED by Felix Manalo in 1914.
Again,you haven’t answered my question on where was INC BEFORE 1914. You DID NOT REFUTE my question, instead you just stated your own opinion.
Exactly my point with regards to the Catholic church’s claim that it is the Church of Christ. For their part, their belief about Jesus is directly opposite the teaching of Jesus himself.
As I’ve said, Brother Manalo is not the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. You cannot find a teaching of the Iglesia Ni Cristo which states that the founder is Bro Manalo. The teaching is clear, Jesus Christ is the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”How many Gods are there?
Bible: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.
Iglesia Ni Cristo: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” UNQUOTE
Is this the ONLY BASIS for INC’s belief that Christ is NOT God?
The problem with INC is they picked verses TO SUIT THEIR BELIEFS and yet NEGLECTING OTHER PASSAGES.
RESBAK,HOW can it be circular argument when all you do is say one verse and that’s it while IGNORING other passages.
Do you need more than one?
You misinterpreted the verses you quoted to justify your own belief. Try understanding the verses which should contradict each other.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”Sorry to tell you, that is not the way to prove the RCC is the true church.”UNQUOTE
But, RESBAK, it is evident no Church can be the Church of Jesus EXCEPT the one that was ESTABLISHED BY Jesus. And when did Jesus establish His Church? When? When He was here upon earth. And how long ago is it that Christ was upon earth? (WAS IT 1914?)You know our Christian era dates from Him. He was born many centuries ago. That is an historical fact admitted by all. He lived on earth thirty-three years. That was about nineteen centuries before our time. That is the time Christ established His Church on earth. ANY Church, then, that HAS NOT existed thus long, is NOT the Church of Jesus Christ, but is the institution or INVENTION of some man or other; not of God, not of Christ, but of man.
Now, which is that Church? There are now three hundred and fifty different Protestant Churches in existence, and almost every year one or two more are added INCLUDING INC; and besides this number there is the Catholic Church.
Now, which of all these varied Churches is the one Church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? ALL claim to be the Church of Jesus.
Now, where is the Church, and which is the Church that has existed thus long? All history informs you that is the Catholic Church; she, and she only among all Christian denominations on the face of the earth, has existed so long. All history, I say, bears testimony to this; not only Catholic history, but Pagan history, Jewish history and Protestant history, indirectly. The history, then, of all nations, of all people, bears testimony that the Catholic Church is the oldest, the first; is the one established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
circular argument again. you need to first establish that the catholic church WAS the church established by Christ before you can claim that it is. It quite easy to do so just check the teachings. Nowhere in the bible is there a teaching of Christ or the Apostles to bow before idols, forbid to marry and to abstain from meat on fridays.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”
Bible: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.
Iglesia Ni Cristo: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” UNQUOTE
The problem with INC doctrine is they only pick verses to suit their own beliefs and yet ignoring out the other passages.
How about GALATIANS 4:4 -
“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, BORN of a woman, born under the law,”
*If Jesus was only a mere man, why would the verse specifically indicate “GOD SENT HIS SON” since there is nothing in scriptures that says a Human soul pre-existed in Heaven before he becomes fully human in the physical sense UNLESS He was DIVINE.
*Why would the verse indicate “BORN OF A WOMAN” when we know very well that humans are conceived in the womb.
ISAIAH 9:5 -
“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”
How about the whole Chapter 1 in the Book of JOHN? It says in the FIRST verse:
” In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the WORD WAS GOD.”
and continue reading until you reach the 14th verse -
“And the WORD BECAME FLESH and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.”
and in 1 JOHN 4:2 -
“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ HAS COME IN THE FLESH is of God,..”
I TIMOTHY 3:16 -
”And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH . . . ” .
MATTHEW 11:27 -
“All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and NO ONE knows the Father EXCEPT THE SON and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.” (Since God is an infinite Being, no man could understand Him fully save the Son who is One in equality with the Father.)
PHILIPPIANS 2:5-6 -
“Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, though he WAS IN THE FORM OF GOD, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.”
THE ABOVE PASSAGES ARE BIBLICAL PROOFS OF CHRIST’S DIVINITY WHICH SADLY ARE BEING IGNORED BY YOUR CHURCH RESBAK!
You misinterpret the verses you quoted.
* Gal 4:4 – God is not BORN. He’s eternal remember?
* Isa 9:5 – Please research further. That’s not a description of Jesus. That’s a title used for God. “a child born” and then “eternal father”? come on.
* John – God is spirit and cannot become flesh.
* 1 Tim 3:16 – same as above
* Matt 11:27 – unless you believe in two Gods.
* Phil 2:5-6 – please research further. “in the form” should actually be “representing”.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:” John – God is spirit and cannot become flesh.”UNQUOTE
CLEARLY, YOU ARE DEVIATING FROM THE SCRIPTURES:
” In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the WORD WAS GOD.” JOHN 1:1
“And the WORD BECAME FLESH and made his dwelling among us,” JOHN 1:14
ITS SO PLAIN TO SEE. YOU ARE REJECTING WHAT IS WRITTEN BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO YOUR BELIEF.
So your interpretation of John 1:1 is literally the “word” was God, correct? If so, please answer the following questions remembering that God himself said there’s is no god besides him.
- Where is God now?
- Where is the “word” now, and is he still God?
- How many gods do you believe in?
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”* Gal 4:4 – God is not BORN. He’s eternal remember?”UNQUOTE
God sending His Son presupposes that God had a Son. Christ was the Son in His eternal relationship with the Father, not because He was born of Mary. Since a son shares the nature of his father, so our Lord shares the Godhead coequally with His Father. Yes, “God sent forth His Son,” from His throne on high, from His position of heavenly glory. God did not send one forth who, in His birth, became His Son, but He sent One who, through all eternity, was His Son. Centuries before Christ was born, the Prophet Isaiah wrote of Him, ”For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given . . . ” (Isaiah 9:6). The Son was given in eternity past before we knew Him. His human birth was merely the method of coming to us.
Fine. If your belief is that your god is born then so be it. But I’d like to let you know that the God of the Christians, of Christ and the Apostles was never born. He is eternal, meaning he has no beginning.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”* Phil 2:5-6 – please research further. “in the form” should actually be “representing”.”UNQUOTE
REPRESENTING? BY INC’S VERSION OF THE BIBLE!
* New International Version (©1984)
Who, being in VERY NATURE God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
* New Living Translation (©2007)
Though he WAS God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.
*English Standard Version (©2001)
who, though he was IN THE FORM of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
*New American Standard Bible (©1995)
who, although He existed in THE FORM of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
*International Standard Version (©2008)
In God’s own form existed he, and SHARED WITH God equality, deemed nothing needed grasping.
*GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Although he was in the FORM OF God and EQUAL WITH God, he did not take advantage of this equality.
*King James Bible
Who, being IN THE FORM OF God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
*American King James Version
Who, being IN THE FORM OF God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
*American Standard Version
who, existing IN THE FORM OF God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
*Bible in Basic English
To whom, though himself IN THE FORM God, it did not seem that to take for oneself was to be like God;
*Douay-Rheims Bible
Who being IN THE FORM OF God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
*Darby Bible Translation
who, subsisting IN THE FORM OF God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God;
*English Revised Version
who, being IN THE FORM OF God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,
*Webster’s Bible Translation
Who, being IN THE FORM OF God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
*Weymouth New Testament
Although from the beginning He HAD THE NATURE OF God He did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped.
*World English Bible
who, existing IN THE FORM OF God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,
*Young’s Literal Translation
who, being IN THE FORM OF God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,
NOW,RESBAK,DID IT NOT MADE YOU WONDER WHY INC’S BIBLE SAYS “REPRESENTING” WHILE ALL THE MAJOR VERSIONS SAYS OTHERWISE?
please check the greek, then check the hebrew.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”Nowhere in the bible is there a teaching of Christ or the Apostles to bow before idols, forbid to marry and to abstain from meat on fridays.”UNQUOTE
*ON THE ISSUE OF BOWING TO STATUES*
When a Catholic bows to a statue, he is NOT worshiping it any more than King Solomon worshiped Bathsheba when he bowed to her in 1 Kings 2:19. In other words, the honor given to images does not detract from the honor that is due to God. After all, if one member of the body is honored, the others should share in its joy (1 Cor 12:26).
If someone enters your house, he should expect to find a picture of your mother. So, when someone walks into a Catholic Church—the household of God—he should not be surprised to find a picture of the mother of God, along with the rest of the heavenly family!
*ON THE ISSUE OF FORBIDDING TO MARRY*
Are you sure? How come there are millions of MARRIED Catholics in the Philippines? On another hand,you are referring to priests. Perhaps you’re unaware that for the last 850 years (since the Second Lateran Council in 1139), all candidates for priestly ordination in the Roman rite HAVE BEEN RQUIRED to take the vow of celibacy.
There’s another problem with your assertion. NO Catholic is forbidden to marry. Men who become priests DO SO VOLUNTARILY with the understanding that in the Roman rite marriage is NOT an option for priests.
Rather than being forbidden to marry, Catholic priests FREELY sacrifice the option of marriage IN FAVOR of serving God more single-mindedly as chaste, celibate disciples.
Although marriage is lawful for all Christians, it’s not mandatory. It’s in harmony with the Gospel to abstain from marriage for the sake of serving Christ. Jesus tells us that some “have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom. Whoever can accept this [a life of celibacy] ought to accept it” (Mt 19:12).
Paul, himself a celibate priest, explains in 1 Corinthians 6:12-13 that “everything is lawful for me, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is lawful for me but I will not let myself be dominated by anything.” Here Paul warns against sexual immorality and exhorts Christians to “glorify God in their bodies” (1 Cor 6:20).
In the next chapter he encourages celibacy by explaining its eminent role in a life of chastity:
Now, in regard to the matters about which you wrote, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman, but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband. . .
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am [celibate], but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another…Now to the unmarried and to widows I say, it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry because it is better to marry than to remain on fire. (1 Cor 7:1-2, 7-10)
1 Timothy 4:3, far from impugning the Catholic discipline of priestly celibacy, condemns those heresies (like the Manichaeans and Albigensians) which said marriage is evil because the body is evil. Paul wasn’t warning Timothy about the Cathohlic discipline–after all, Paul himself followed it!
*ON THE ISSUE OF ABSTAINING MEAT ON FRIDAYS*
ABSTAINING MEAT IS A SIGN OF REPENTANCE and there is BIBLICAL BASIS FOR IT. The book of Daniel states:
“In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia . . . ‘I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. I ate no choice food; NO MEAT or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over.’” (Daniel 10:1-3)
WHY ON A FRIDAY?
This is because Jesus died for our sins on Friday, making it an especially appropriate day of mourning our sins (just as Sunday, the day on which he rose for our salvation is an especially appropriate day to rejoice) by denying ourselves something we enjoy. During the rest of the year Catholics in are permitted to use a different act of penance on Friday in place of abstinence, though all Fridays are days of penance on which we are required to do something expressing sorrow for our sins, just as Sundays are holy days on which we are required to worship and celebrate God’s great gift of salvation.
We’re not even talking about idol worship YET. The commandment was to not bow. and you bow. You’re doing something that God specifically said not to do. That’s that.
Are priest allowed to marry? no. there you go, forbidding to marry.
1. “mourned for three weeks”. You abstain from meat every friday, every year.
2. Daniel saw a vision of something which caused him to mourn. Did all of you see the same vision?
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”Bro Felix Y Manalo, or any minister or member of the Iglesia Ni Cristo ever claim that Bro Manalo is the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. There is not a teaching in the INC that says that.” UNQUOTE
THEN YOU ARE MISLED. YOUR CHURCH WAS FOUNDED BY FELIX MANALO IN 1914. HE WAS A CATHOLIC BEFORE HE FOUNDED YOUR CHURCH. RESEARCH ON HIS LIFE AND YOU’LL BE IN FOR A SHOCK. I THINK THIS INFORMATION IS BEING KEPT AWAY BY YOUR VERY OWN MINISTERS!
IF YOU SAY INC WAS FOUNDED BY JESUS CHRIST,IT IS VERY EASY TO CLAIM THAT SINCE THE WORD “CHURCH OF CHRIST” IS INDEED IN THE BIBLE BUT IF YOU CHECK ON THE VERY EXISTENCE OF YOUR CHURCH VIA HISTORY,I DON’T THINK IT WOULD GO BACK AS SEVERAL CENTURIES.
I CHALLENGE YOU: HOW OLD IS THE CHURCH OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO? BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCES THAT INDEED YOUR CHURCH HAS BEEN THERE FOR THOUSAND OF CENTURIES.
You said “YOUR CHURCH WAS FOUNDED BY FELIX MANALO IN 1914″. Where’d you get this? Show me a teaching of the Iglesia Ni Cristo where it states that Bro Felix Manalo founded the church.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”When was the church before 1914? Please read what the Apostles foretell before they died.”
Even if the phrase “church of Christ” did appear in the Bible, it would not help Iglesia’s case. Before Manalo started his church, there were already groups calling themselves “the Church of Christ.” There are several Protestant denominations that call themselves Church of Christ and use exactly the same argument. Of course, they aren’t the true Church for the same reason Iglesia isn’t—because they were not founded by Christ.
“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1); and, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own liking, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim. 4:3–4). By falling away from the Church, members of Iglesia are committing precisely the kind of apostasy of which they accuse the Catholic Church.
The Bible tells us in 1 John 4:1: “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” Was Felix Manalo a true prophet? Is his church the “true Church?” If we test the claims of Iglesia ni Cristo, the answer is apparent. His total apostasy doctrine is in flat contradiction to Christ’s teaching. There is no way that Iglesia ni Cristo can be the true Church of Christ.
I’ve explained this to you in another response. You seem to be going around in circles most of the time asking the same questions over and over.
The name is just one test in determining the true Church of Christ. The church built and headed by Christ is named after him, thus Church of Christ. The Catholic church failed this first test.
You quoted 1 Timothy concerning doctrines of demons. In verse 3 two doctrines of demons are enumerated, and both are practiced by the Catholic church.
1 John 4:1 actually refers to the Catholic church. How can the true church teach the trinity when it is against God’s truth.
RESBAK,one of the marks of the TRUE CHURCH is being APOSTOLIC(Eph. 2:19–20).
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, SINCE THE FIRST century (WAS THERE A CHURCH CALLED IGLESIA NI CRISTO IN THE PHILIPPINES DURING THAT TIME?), there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).
These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.
Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these FIRST Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.
I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE TO ME THAT AN IGLESIA NI CRISTO MINISTER WAS PROCLAIMING THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST IN THE FIRST CENTURY IN ANY PART IF THE WORLD.
If the Apostles were the first leaders of the Catholic church, would you thing the Catholic church would be teachings and upholding teachings of the Apostles? Are they? Let check and see.
Apostle Paul: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
Iglesia ni Cristo: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
Roman Catholic Church: We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
…
true God from true God,
Nicean Creed(not even from the bible)
See? The Catholic church does not follow and obey the teachings of the Apostles. There is no way the RCC is apostolic.
I could go on and respond to the rest of your comment but what for?
AS St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch SAID: “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop . . . Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude (of faithful) also be, even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Smyrneans, 8).
RESBAK,CAN YOU PROVIDE ME EARLY ACCOUNTS OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO MINISTERS AS OPPOSE TO THE ABOVE TO PROVE THAT YOUR CHURCH EVEN EXISTED FOR CENTURIES.
“St.” Ignatius is not an Apostle, nor is he a contemporary, student, confidant, etc of any Apostle. Any claims to the contrary are dubious at best. His teachings are directly contradictory to those of the Apostles and should be considered as such.
FROM RESBAK:”The first one to use the word was Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD. By this date, all of the Apostles were already dead and the writing of scriptures had ended. The writings of Ignatius can then be safely and rightfully called “unbiblical”.”
Then how on earth did the written scriptures BY THE APOSTLES were passed on? By whom? You see that is where the problem lies if you do not believe in APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION!
As the apostles died, the task of shepherding the Church fell by default upon the highest-ranking ministers appointed by them. This group is KNOWN TODAY as the BISHOPS, who are the SUCCESSORS of the apostles as the highest shepherds of the earthly Church.
Due to bishops’ role as the successors of the apostles, possession of a valid episcopacy is necessary for a church to claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession thus involves in the bishops serving as successors to the apostles, not serving as apostles. The bishops are not simply a continuation of the office of apostle; they received the governance of the Church when that office ceased.
How can you say the writings of Ignatius and the Church fathers be rightfully called “unbiblical” when they are NOT in a sense putting up their own gospel BUT TESTIFYING & COMMENTING on Scripture and the unwritten apostolic Tradition AND PLACED THEM INTO WRITING. Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch after the apostles and witness to Peter, Barnabas, and Paul.
There were people other than you’re “church fathers” in those early centuries so don’t assume your Catholic church was the only religion back then. And actually, there was not a Catholic church in the time of Ignatius. Please do a research on your own church.
The Catholic “church fathers” were not the successors of the Apostles. They were the ones called by the Apostles as wolves in sheeps clothing.
FROM RESBAK:”Show me a teaching of the Iglesia Ni Cristo where it states that Bro Felix Manalo founded the church.”
IT IS NOT INC’S TEACHING BUT THE SIMPLE FACT IS, YOUR CHURCH WAS FOUNDED BY FELIX MANALO – THAT IS THE VERY REASON WHY YOU CELEBRATE EVERY 27TH OF JULY OF EVERY YEAR YOUR FOUNDING ANNIVERSARY.
Wrong again. The Iglesia Ni Cristo does not celebrate a “founding anniversary”.
You said “IT IS NOT INC’S TEACHING”. Good! now you know.
http://readmeinc.blogspot.com/2010/01/catholic-church-is-church-of-christ-in.html
http://readmeinc.blogspot.com/2009/12/original-church.html
How can be the Catholic church the 1st century church established by christ if they can only traced back its history not the history of the doctrines inside the CC? do they know what is the meaning of apostasy that they say did not happen?? tsk. tsk.
Poor souls, they were blinded by the MOTHER OF HARLOTS! and The torturer who murdered many hundred year ago.
FROM READ ME:” do they know what is the meaning of apostasy that they say did not happen?? tsk. tsk.”
My dear,could you please read the prophecy of Paul in 2 Thess. 2:2–3? It says:
” Do not be quickly shaken in mind or excited . . . to the effect that the DAY OF THE LORD has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day WILL NOT come, UNLESS REBELLION [Greek: apostasia] COMES FIRST”
IF THE REBELLION/APOSTASY HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE,THEN WHY IS IT THAT THE DAY OF THE LORD HAS NOT COME YET?
IT IS VERY PLAIN TO SEE IN PAUL’S PROPHECY THAT THE DAY OF THE LORD’S COMING WOULD ONLY TAKE PLACE UNLESS THE REBELLION COMES FIRST.
If you are charging the Catholic Church for Apostasy,then you are charging Jesus Christ a LIAR since He promised that:
” “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell WILL NOT PREVAIL against it” (Matt. 16:18).
In other passages, Christ teaches the same truth. In Matthew 28:20 he said,
“I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS EVEN UNTIL the end of the world.”
And in John 14:16, 18 he said,
“And I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, TO BE WITH YOU FOREVER… I will not leave you desolate.”
If YOU & Iglesia members accept the apostasy doctrine, they make Christ a liar. Since you believe Jesus Christ is not a liar, you are IGNORING what Christ promised, and YOUR church’s doctrine CONTRADICTS Scriptures.
You just answered your own question. You said “IF THE REBELLION/APOSTASY HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE,THEN WHY IS IT THAT THE DAY OF THE LORD HAS NOT COME YET?”
Not because it has not come yet while we still live doesn’t mean it is not coming. If you know or remember, the Apostles themselves during their time said that the coming is near, at the door. That was 2000 years ago so it is presumptuous to say that apostasy did not happen just because the coming has not happened yet.
Resbak,then why charge that the Church has apostasized? That is the main force where INC gets their justification on attacking the Catholic church!
What exactly do you mean by “that apostasy did not happen just because the coming has not happened yet.” – Your statement is a classic case of private interpretation of scriptues!
Because they did.
Here’s a proof of that. A very simple yet profound proof of the apostasy. What is one teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles that the Catholic church rejected and exchanged for another doctrine? That God the Father is the ONLY true God. I know you respond with all sorts of rationalization but the fact remains, the god of the Catholic church is different from the God of the Apostles let alone the Lord Jesus.
FROM README:”How can be the Catholic church the 1st century church established by christ if they can only traced back its history not the history of the doctrines inside the CC? ”
The Church holds that, by the grace of Christ, it is “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God should be made known” (Eph. 3:10) since God the Incarnate Son handed revelation on, not by writing a book, but by choosing human beings called apostles to preserve his gospel.
To these apostles he granted nothing less than the power to teach authoritatively in his name and assured them “He who listens to you listens to me” (Luke 10:16). Part of this authoritative teaching is preserved in Scripture, part of it is preserved by “word of mouth” (2 Thess. 2:15). All is conserved by the interpretive authority of the bishops who were apostolically empowered to rebuke false teaching (1 Tim. 1:3), to “guard the good deposit” that was entrusted to them (2Tim. 1:14), and to appoint others to do the same (Titus 1:5) in an unbroken succession down to the present time. Thus it is that God has not left us orphans. He has given us himself as our Father and the Church as our Mother.
You said “God the Incarnate Son”. This statement has no biblical basis whatsoever. I’m sure you’ll come up with writings from people other than the Apostles. If you do, you’re just admitting that your doctrines are extra-biblical and therefore un-christian.
FROM RESBAK:”What is one teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles that the Catholic church rejected and exchanged for another doctrine? That God the Father is the ONLY true God.”
Is that the only thing your investing on your justification?
Then what to you is the Holy Spirit?
Why does the Holy Spirit have attributes that ONLY God has?
For example,the Holy Spirit is
1. EVERLASTING (Heb. 9:14),
2. ALL KNOWING (1 Cor. 2:10) and
3. OMNIPRESENT (Ps. 139:7)
HOW THEN YOU CAN INC RECONCILE THESE PASSAGES AS OPPOSE TO THE CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRINITY?
THE ONLY INC OPTION IS EITHER REJECT IT OR AVOID IT OR GO TO THE FIRST CHARGE OF MAKING ANOTHER DOCTRINE.
If you interpret the verses you quoted as saying the Holy Spirit is also God(in particular Heb 9:14), then you need to explain why God who is everlasting and all knowing and omnipresent didn’t know that the Holy Spirit is also God.
FROM RESBAK:”You said “God the Incarnate Son”. This statement has no biblical basis whatsoever.”
Because you REJECT that the “WORD BECAME flesh”(JOHN 1:14)as NOT literal! But when you READ THE COMPLETE VERSE,it states:
“and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the FATHER’s ONLY SON, full of grace and truth.”
You see,the Father’s ONLY SON was being referred to as the “WORD”.
And there are a lot of biblical passages that the WORD was JESUS.
The letters of Paul continue the identification of Jesus with God’s Wisdom. 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30 is the most clear: Christ is explicitly identified as “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” Elsewhere in 1 Cor. of relevance:
Wisdom 1:4: Wisdom existed before all things….
1 Corinthians 2:7: …wisdom that God predestined before the ages….
Wisdom 1:6: To whom has the root of wisdom been revealed?
1 Corinthians 2:10: God revealed these things to us….
Wisdom 1:10: …he has given [wisdom] to those who love him.
1 Corinthians 2:9: …which God has prepared for those who love him.
Wisdom 1:15: [Wisdom] has built an eternal foundation among men….
1 Corinthians 3:10: …as a wise architect I laid down a foundation….
Wisdom 2:5: Gold is tested in the fire….
1 Corinthians 3:12-13: And if any man builds upon the foundation with gold or silver or precious stones…, it is to be revealed in fire.
Colossians 1:15-18 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
This passage is full of allusions to the Wisdom literature. Note the following parallels:
Colossians 1:15a He is the image of the invisible God…
Wisdom of Solomon 7:26 (Wisdom is) a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness.
Colossians 1:15b …the firstborn over all creation.
You see,[THIS PART EDITED. SPAM REMOVED]. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL.
You quoted a lot of verses and yet not one proved your previous claim that Jesus was the “God the Incarnate Son”.
Think for a moment. A son has a father, agree? If the Father is God, and the Son is “God the Incarnate Son” then you have two Gods. A totally non biblical and unchristian doctrine.
FROM RESBAK:”If you interpret the verses you quoted as saying the Holy Spirit is also God(in particular Heb 9:14), then you need to explain why God who is everlasting and all knowing and omnipresent didn’t know that the Holy Spirit is also God.”
the Holy Spirit is referred to in personal terms by our Lord throughout the New Testament. If we only consider John chapters 14, 15, and 16, the evidence is overwhelming. This is not to mention the abundance of examples we could cite throughout Scripture, both Old (in seed form) and New Testaments. Let’s take John 14:16-17 to start. Jesus says,
“And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, who the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.”
In John 15:26-27, Jesus says,
“But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning.”
And in John 16:7-15, Jesus makes it very plain,
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment; of sin, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
Among the many texts revealing the Holy Spirit’s divinity, perhaps the most plain and unmistakable are found in Hebrews. First, we’ll examine Hebrews 3:7-10:
“Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their hearts; they have not known my ways.’”
Notice the Holy Spirit is synonymous with God himself. In Hebrews 10:15-17, the reference is even more clear:
“And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their misdeeds no more.”
The Holy Spirit is revealed here to be both a person and divine. He is depicted as “bear[ing] witness,” “establish[ing] a covenant,” is referred to as “the Lord,” “puts [his] laws on [our] hearts,” and even forgives sins.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU CONFUSE THE TRINITY TO BE 3 GODS IN ALL WHEN ITS NOT.
You did not respond to the the point I raised. If the Son and the Holy Spirit are also God like the Father, then the Father being allknowing should have known them(the Son and the Holy Spirit) as Gods. He did not.
The truth is irrefutable, there is only ONE God the Father in heaven. Anything that is different to this such as the trinity doctrine is extra biblical and unchristian.
FROM RESBAK:”If the Father is God, and the Son is “God the Incarnate Son” then you have two Gods. A totally non biblical and unchristian doctrine.”
So resbak,the problem is you are investing only on the 1 TIMOTHY 2:5 argument for your belief that Jesus was just a man.
BUT have you read this?
“I am the LORD, this is my name; MY GLORY I give to no other..” – ISAIAH 42:8
AND CORRELATE IT WITH JOHN 17:5 -
“Now glorify me, Father, with you, with the GLORY that I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN.”
IT SAYS BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN!
NOW IS THERE ANY MAN IN HISTORY WHO ALREADY EXISTED EVEN BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN?
The belief of the Iglesia ni Cristo is that Jesus is man. He said so himself:” Jesus said to them… But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. .
The verses you quoted does not say anything about Jesus being God.
No. Please read the creation of the first man.
FROM RESBAK:”You said “God the Incarnate Son”. This statement has no biblical basis whatsoever.”
ISAIAH 7:14
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him IMMANUEL.”
MATTHEW 1:23
“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “GOD WITH US.”
JOHN 1:14
“And the WORD BECAME FLESH and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s ONLY SON, full of grace and truth.”
1 TIMOTHY 3:16
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
THE PROBLEM WITH INC IS THEY JUST CHERRY-PICK SOME VERSES TO SUIT AND JUSTIFY THEIR BELIEFS AND YET NEGLECTING OR IGNORING OTHER VERSES.
Concerning the “meaning” of the name “Jesus“. You cannot use the meaning of the name to justify your belief that Jesus is God. Please do a research on why Hebrew names have meanings. See also “Isra El, Dani El, Ishma El” and others.
With regards to cherry picking. You’re wrong. If you believe that, then the Lord Jesus also cherry picked.
FROM RESBAK:”As far as worshipping the Lord Jesus, please read your bible and look for when God commanded that the Lord Jesus is to be worshipped.”
PHILIPPIANS 2:5-11
“Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,
Who, though HE WAS IN THE FORM OF GOD, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance,
he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.
Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
that at the NAME OF JESUS EVERY KNEE SHOULD BEND, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD, to the glory of God the Father.”
BUT BEFORE THAT, IN COLOSSIANS 1:15 IT IS SAID THAT JESUS IS -
“He is the IMAGE of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN of all creation.”
AND WHEN WE GO BACK TO HEBREWS 1:6
“And again, when he leads the FIRST BORN into the world, he says: “Let all the angels of God WORSHIP him.”
YOU SEE,IT IS ONLY ROMAN CATHOLICISM WHO HAS A TRUE & DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCRIPTURES.
IF YOU ARE FAIR-MINDED,YOU HAVE TO READ MORE RATHER THAN DELVE ON TO THE PREJUDICES OF INC HURLED AGAINST THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
Funny how you quote verses, then use your own interpretation to justify your claim when the same verses you quoted contradicts your claim. Let me point it out to you.
You say that Jesus is God because “HE WAS IN THE FORM OF GOD”, “image” of God, etc. Except you missed this part “of the invisible God”. You see, God has no physical form like the Lord Jesus. God is also eternal, whereas Jesus was “FIRST BORN”.